Actually, I don't believe that any of those issues have been solved and if you have info to show other wise, then please share

As for nuclear power, that would not come close to the speeds you are describing

Go back a few posts, you will find a link to the latest on this technology.

It uses what they are calling "Novel Physics", so, all the stuff you heard about how much power is required doesn't apply.

This works by spinning a Niobium mass while cooling it to superconducting temperatures. They have found that a significant Gavito-Electromagnetic
field is produced. Doing this also produced an artificial gravity. Doing these things required rather little energy. By placing what they are calling
an "induction" coil near the spinning mass and passing a rather small amount of current through it, the artificial gravity changes it relation to
the Niobium mass and is positioned along its rotational axis; this gives a useful "thrust vector"

In the lab this system required a very small aunt of power for operation, course theirs was small. Scaling this system up would require more energy,
however, as I said, there are known, and well proven methods of generating the relatively small amount of energy required.

The first part of that paper will give you an overview of Hiem Physics. This system is based in the multidimensional world of that novel physics (8
dimensions). Part two goes into this field drive system.

And all that muck equates to a human able to travel to a distant stars in a few weeks? This all sounds very new and at best in development yet you
said we had the tech today to move people to distant stars, so we have conflicting stories.

To confirm then, using todays tech and our fastest rocket it would take roughly 80k years to reach our nearest star outside the solar system?

Trying to think why we are so many posts later and you argued my original post. You can argue and post links all you want, and even in the unlikely
event that it is possible in the future, it certainly isn't today.

And all that muck equates to a human able to travel to a distant stars in a few weeks? This all sounds very new and at best in development yet you
said we had the tech today to move people to distant stars, so we have conflicting stories.

Sounds like you have not had the opportunity to "watch" technlogy grow. In 1970, just before the "invention" of the microprocessor by Intel. Earth
had no "machine" that would serve as a "coputing device" other than "mini-computers" that weighed hundreds of pounds and filled at least one 7 foot
eqipment rack. By 1975, I had a "PC" that didn't quite fill a single 4 foot rack. Today I have "under my desk" a small box with more computing power
than most countries had in 1980.

So; "in development", really means "not released" in todays technological world. Especially when it comes to such simple devices as this field
generator.

Seriously, any moderately bright person could discover "magnets" today, and have a compass tomarrow.

To confirm then, using todays tech and our fastest rocket it would take roughly 80k years to reach our nearest star outside the solar system?

Yes, it is absolutely true, a ROCKET wil take your 80k years. Rockets are slow! Rockets require fuel, and the burning of that fuel, in turn
they provide some small aount of thrust (in that the thrust will be sub-light speed). The "craft" using that rocket engine can never go faster than
its exhaust.

A field drive has NO exhaust, and this one places a gravity "node" in front of the "craft" and uses that to provide acceleration. Doing it this way
means that One can the same acceleration continously for as long as it is needed, so ... how fast did you want to go? FTL? Wait for it.

With a weak system, one that can only provide 1g of acceleration; at the end of a year it would be moving at just over the speed of light, and it
would be nearly a light year from where it started. Tri to Earth's nearest star? Less than 5 years.

There are however other issues to consider at those speeds. Like "time dilation", which is another reason you can't do this with a "rocket". This
field generator also has an effect of what is termed "frame-dragging"; this is where an object "drags" it's inertial frame for some period of time
(all objects do this). The cooled, spinning Niobium mass alters it's "frame dragging" properties and allows for a "different local clock rate". By
exploiting this, that trip to the nearest star can take 5 "normal space years".

Star travel is then practical.

Trying to think why we are so many posts later and you argued my original post. You can argue and post links all you want, and even in the unlikely
event that it is possible in the future, it certainly isn't today.

On a side note is time travel possible both forwards and back?

This was discovered in 2003, and became a "working drive theory" in 2006. Do you really think it hasn't been developed further than that? In 2006,
just after the scientists completed their lab work, and realized what they had, it became a matter of scale. Obviously the original lab system
wouldn't work; not big enough. They used ounces of Niobium and very small electrical potentials and currents. Scaling this system to something
practical is simple enough that anyone could do it. More Niobium, more electricty is a virtual "no brainer".

Time travel; I'm still undecided on that. Time is typically a unidirectional "thing". It has a vector that only points in one direction; forward. It
is easy to conceive of time existing only in the "moment"; events of the pase have already happened, they are history, AND, no longer exist except as
memorits. The future hasn't hapened yet, and therefore does not exist ... yet. Given this it becomes difficult to "see" tie travel.

Crazy thing is, in the Kerr Metric it is possible to change the "sign" of the "time vector" (from positive to negative), this "should" have the effect
of reversing Ones "direction" of travel through time. Unfortunately, I'm not a physicist (just an electrical/software engineer), so the math gets a
bit over my head. Although the control of this "tie vector" is important in FTL, and there are methods that can be used to provide at least some of
this control.

So, on time travel: don't know ... yet.

Now, back to this "in develoment" stuff. It is possible to use smething like this withut fully understanding it. Just look at the application of
electricity in today's technology.Electricity is still very much not understood.

ETA: In this field drive, there is no exotic technology, so building one is something anyone can do in their garage.

I read through the one link that you posted but I just don't see how this theory proves that we can apply this to a working model , let alone travel
the stars ?

As for a "working molel" goes, we can use the lab odel to begin with. This is a rather simple "achine"cnsisting of a Niobium disk mounted in such
a way that we can rotate (spin) it, and contained within a cryogenic container. Add one coil of wire to the mix and you have a "drive" system.

I know, it all sounds a bit too simple, but, in my exirence as an engineer, the simple solutions, are frequently over-looked (at first), and provide
the best overall solution.

In the world of Physics, any still overly concentrate on Einstien, While his theories of Relativity are very important, they do not "explain"
everything. This is why Einstien never acheived his "theory of everything". But, many of Einstien's theories have been confirmed by labratory work,
and today we all accept it as truth.

Heim's theories are no different, though without the fame. The theories of Heim are currently being confirmed in the lab. That is what these two
papers are about. The important thing here is that Heim Space Theory predicts several fundamental "interactions" at the atomic levels, and these
"interactions" were found and "proven" in the lab (that is actually in the first paper ). The second paper shows later, independant work to
confirm the earlier work, and, continues to the "next step"; the modification of the original lab model to allow it to produce a useable /
controlable thrust.

Some of the things that are missing though; would be an indication of what factors deterine the amount of available thrust, what, if any, "extoic"
materials are required. As far as I know the most "exotic" thing here is the use of Niobium.

Probably there are aliens somewhere els in the Universe, there is one thing that keeps me from thinking they've been here, there is so much space
between planets, espessically stars. The closest star system to our Sun, Proxima Centauri is already 4,22 lightyears away. If you'd use our Voyager
to get there, it would take about 80.000 years.. yup

And that's slow travel is based on our technology levels. Older civilizations, if they existed, could have much more advanced technology that we
simply don't know about thanks to our limited understanding of science.

So until life is actually found, I'm going with the default we are the only ones.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Probably isn't proof. It's just speculation.

And that's slow travel is based on our technology levels. Older civilizations, if they existed, could have much more advanced technology that we
simply don't know about thanks to our limited understanding of science.

So until life is actually found, I'm going with the default we are the only ones.

And, y'all say this right after you are shown that your ideas of how fast / slow modern technological travel is, are completely obsolete. This is the
kind of thinking that will hold you back. You need to let go of your ideas of limitations that you have had in the past. This is NOW the past is
gone.

The reality is that now, Terrestrial science and technology can build primative field drives, and acheive FTL, and do it with today's
technology.

ETA: Oh BTW your default ; "we are the only ones" is not a valid default. It never has been, except to a primative, ego. The reality is that great
evidence of life has turned up in a surprising large number of places, not all of them on Earth.

Rambo man, this is the very argument I put to our friend from Andromeda. The closest star outside our solar system is indeed 4.2 light years away, so
even if Earthlings had the tech today to build a ship to travel at the speed of light it would of course take 4.2 years of travel. Anthra, if you read
back claims that we have the technology to reach Proxima Centauri in a few weeks, quite amazing.

I am in your thinking that life has a good possibly to exist elsewhere, I mean the universe is so huge surely there has to be a good chance. In the
rare possibility that life exists (Never mind intelligent life) in the closest discovered Earth like planet (Kepler 22-b) it would take 600 years to
travel there in an light speed vehicle.

So I am more that sceptical that little green men come in flying discs all the way to Earth and then hide, with all that travel time and effort,
unless their technologies are so advanced we will never understand them, but anyway, there you have it.

You think if we had these advanced techs today then they would have implemented them into the latest Mars mission, you know and got the rover there in
5 minutes.

So to summarise, our friend who thinks he comes from Andromeda and that humans can build a craft today that can travel faster than the speed of light
is talking poo poo, although I will be the first to say sorry if he can prove this wrong and not post links that don't work

Did this " Walter Dröscher " ever work in a lab ? Or was he simply a person interested in physics who working in a patent office ?

Not that the later would prove him worng , I am just wondering how much lab time he actually got ?

Good question. From what I'm reading he was a Physicist who wrked down at the patient Office. Where it seems he later met Heim and worked with him
frm 1980 on.

Heres the think about eductions like his; while in school, yeah, plenty lab time. Just like me as an Electrical Engineer, ore lab time than we know
what t do with. But, once out of school, I highly doubt he sat the outside of a lab door. Once "on the job" things can change dramatically, though
in the case of an Engineer the lab desn't eally stop. It just isn't "pre- arranged" any more.

Now it does seem that Droscher did have the education in Physics, along with Computer Science, as he seems to be referred to as a Professor of
Computer Science. Though interestingly I don't see any reference to him "as" a physicist, only a Computer Scientist. This leads me to think he has
something less than a PhD in physics.

So, it doesn't appear as though he's spent much time in the lab, but, as I was saying; that is not uncommn in many scientific disciplines. Physics
and Computer Science typically dn't need much lab work, and consists of ore dtat analysis than anything else

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.